Difference between revisions of "Distribution requirement"

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Legal challenges to distribution requirements)
(Legal challenges to distribution requirements)
Line 35: Line 35:
 
==Legal challenges to distribution requirements==
 
==Legal challenges to distribution requirements==
  
* In 2001, in the case of [[Idaho Coalition United for Bears v. Cenarrusa]], a federal judge declared that Idaho's distribution requirement for initiatives was unconstitutional on the grounds that the restrictions violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In 2003, the decision was appealed by the state of Idaho to [[United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit]].  The higher court affirmed the lower court's ruling.
+
* In 1969, in the case of ''[[Moore v. Ogilvie]]'', the [[Judgepedia:Supreme Court of the United States|U.S. Supreme Court]] struck down an [[Illinois]] distribution requirement saying that it "applies a rigid, arbitrary formula to sparsely settled counties and populous counties alike, and thus discriminates against the residents of the populous counties in the exercise of their political rights in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."
 +
 
 +
* In 2001, in the case of ''[[Idaho Coalition United for Bears v. Cenarrusa]]'', a federal judge declared that Idaho's distribution requirement for initiatives was unconstitutional on the grounds that the restrictions violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In 2003, the decision was appealed by the state of Idaho to [[United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit]].  The higher court affirmed the lower court's ruling.
 +
 
 +
* In 2002, in the case of ''[[Gallivan v. Walker]]'', the [[Utah Supreme Court]] struck down [[Utah]]'s distribution requirement, declaring that the initiative right is a "fundamental right implicit in a free society" and that the distribution requirement impinged on it. 
  
 
* In the 2005 federal court case [[Montana PIRG v. Johnson]], a distribution requirement in Montana was declared unconstitutional.
 
* In the 2005 federal court case [[Montana PIRG v. Johnson]], a distribution requirement in Montana was declared unconstitutional.

Revision as of 21:54, 22 August 2008

Ballot law
BallotLaw final.png
State laws
Initiative law
Recall law
Statutory changes
Ballot Law Update
Current edition
Court cases
Lawsuit news
Ballot access rulings
Recent court cases
Petitioner access
Ballot title challenges
Superseding initiatives
Signature challenges
Local ballot measure laws
A distribution requirement is a legislative mandate requiring that petitions for a candidate or a ballot measure must be signed by voters from different political subdivisions in order for the candidate or ballot measure to be certified for the ballot. A distribution requirement is a way of requiring that "widespread support" for the candidate or ballot measure be demonstrated via the evidence of registered voters from a variety of political subdivisions signing petitions for that candidate or ballot measure.

States with distribution requirements are:

  • Alaska. At least one signature from 2/3 of the state's election districts.
  • Florida. 8% in 12 of 23 congressional districts.
  • Maryland. No more than half of required signatures may be from any one county or Baltimore City.
  • Massachusetts. No more than one-quarter of the certified signatures may come from any one county.
  • Missouri. Sponsors must collect a minimum threshold of signatures in 6 out of Missouri's 9 U.S. congressional districts.
  • Montana. For a statute, 5% in 34 of 50 legislative districts. For an amendment, 10% in 40 out of the 50 state legislative districts.
  • Nebraska. In Nebraska, signatures over a threshold determined by whether the petition is for a statute or a constitutional amendment must be collected in a minimum of 40% (or 38) of Nebraska's 93 counties.
  • Nevada. In Nevada, signatures equalling 10% of the total number of votes cast in the last general election must be collected in at least 13 out of Nevada's 17 counties.
  • Ohio. In Ohio, signatures for both amendments and statutes must be obtained from at least 44 of the 88 counties of the state.
  • Utah. For direct initiatives, proponents must gather 10% of the vote cast in at least 20 of Utah's 29 counties. For indirect initiatives, proponents must gather 5% in at least 20 of 29 counties.
  • Wyoming. 15% of total votes cast in the last election from at least 2/3 of the counties. If Wyoming Constitutional Amendment B (2008) passes, the new requirement will be 15% of votes cast in the last election from 2/3rds of the state's thirty state senate districts.

States without distribution requirements are:

Legal challenges to distribution requirements

  • In 1969, in the case of Moore v. Ogilvie, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down an Illinois distribution requirement saying that it "applies a rigid, arbitrary formula to sparsely settled counties and populous counties alike, and thus discriminates against the residents of the populous counties in the exercise of their political rights in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."
  • In 2002, in the case of Gallivan v. Walker, the Utah Supreme Court struck down Utah's distribution requirement, declaring that the initiative right is a "fundamental right implicit in a free society" and that the distribution requirement impinged on it.
  • In the 2005 federal court case Montana PIRG v. Johnson, a distribution requirement in Montana was declared unconstitutional.

Petition sponsors in states with distribution requirements face the difficult decision of whether to comply with a requirement that may be unconstitutional, or filing a federal lawsuit. Since the costs of such litigation can easily exceed $100,000, and since the litigation might take years, as a practical matter, most petition sponsors elect to comply with a law that may be unconstitutional.

See also


LawsAccessBadgesBallot title issuesChangesDeadlinesDefining a signatureDistributionPay restrictionsResidencySignature numbersSingle subject